Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
governments, spending 42% of the gdp. and we want to make any effort to stop that? or are we discussing to say it has never stopped before? >> i think the earlier social security, not fully implemented. there was no medicare. it has been pretty stable since 1980. it goes up and down with the business cycle, but it is pretty stable. this is the division between the right and left. who will continue to fight about bigger government and smaller government. we will not do it by refusing to pay for the government we have, thinking the economy in the process. that would be a good start, as a backdrop. i want to touch on your question about corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tre
options will get the revenue for the government. >> in terms of getting rid of deductions or expanding the base, there's basically three approaches to we can take. one is the overall cap. capping the total amount of deductions or capping the tax value of deductions like maya and marty feld stein have put forth and the advantage to that is politically you're not actually attacking anyone -- any one specific subsidy, you're just saying we're putting a cap on the overall system. a second way is what john podesta mentioned, we are going to change specific items but wohl change them all in the same way. you're not special, we're not picking on you, so we're going to change all deductions to 18% or something like that. the third way which is probably the perfect way from the economic approach is to deal with each of these on an individual bay sess. tax expenditures generally cover an enormous range of activities whether it's ex-cluges or deductions or credits or lower rates, etc. we call them all tax expenditures but it shouldn't hide the underlying heterogeneity. so a package that went afte
on maintaining good government, and fierce loyalty to his home state, new hampshire, is something we in congress strive to attain. we will miss him, but we will try to live by the standards he set. i remember back when he was chairing the iran-contra hearings in this room. even though we were from different parties, thinking how proud i was that he represented the state of new hampshire. i offer my condolences to the entire rudman family, to his wife, margaret, to children and grandchildren. looking at the celebrated speakers who are here today to remember warren rudman, it is clear just how significant his contributions were to the senate and to this country. i am pleased to introduce my colleague, the other senator from the state of new hampshire, kelly ayotte. [applause] >> i want to thank my colleague, senator shaheen, and i want to thank our distinguished guests who are here. as we gather to celebrate the achievements of a great man, warren rudman, a statesman who carried out the people's work with honesty, integrity, and decency. daniel webster once said, "in the mountains of new hampshire
it will undermine democratic governments. it will continue to impede economic growth overseas and it will strengthen us right here in the united states. in other words, this isn't just an economic issue or a health care issue. it's a national security issue. unfortunately, mr. speaker, over the last decade acting in our national security interest has come to mean invading and occupying foreign nations. the iraq war lasted nine years and was responsible for untold human misery. the afghanistan war, now in its 12th year, and it continues to damage our national security interest, instead of enhancing them. it hasn't defeated the taliban, nor has it alleviating crushing poverty or produced a stable democracy in afghanistan. and then there's the cost. some $10 billion a month. that would be a staggering amount of money for a successful policy. for a failed policy, it's downright scandalous, and it is rarely mentioned in all the conversations about so-called deficit crisis and fiscal cliffs. usaid and other civilian arms of government could do a world of good towards solving the aids crisis with a fractio
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4